North Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Adams

• Decision Date: 13 May 1867
• Citation: 54 Pa. 94
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: The North Pennsylvania Railroad Company <I>versus</I> Adams.

54 Pa. 94

The North Pennsylvania Railroad Company versus Adams.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 15, 1867.

May 13, 1867.

January 15th 1867.

Before WOODWARD, C. J., THOMPSON, READ and AGNEW, JJ. STRONG, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.

W. R. Wister, for plaintiffs in error.—A plaintiff should simply file a copy and statement of the extent of his claim, and not allege upon oath facts without which he could not recover: Imhoff v. Brown, 6 Casey 504. The averments in the affidavit are of the plaintiff's belief as to presentation; nothing can be inferred beyond positive averments: Walker v. Geisse, 4 Wh. 257; Harris v. Mason, 2 Miles 270.

The defendant was not bound to seek the holder after maturity: Emlen v. Lehigh Navigation Co., 11 Wright 76.

The Act of May 3d 1866, Pamph. L. 116, was intended to apply to cases where the validity of the bonds had been contested. It cannot be applied to defaults before its passage: Becker's Appeal, 3 Casey 52.

G. W. Biddle, for defendant in error.—Interest on coupons may be recovered: County of Beaver v. Armstrong, 8 Wright 63.

The plaintiff may make averments beyond the instrument filed, which, if not denied, are admitted: Bank of United States v. Thayer, 2 W. & S. 443; Mahon v. Gormly, 12 Harris 80, 83. The defendants should have shown a readiness to pay on presentation: Emlen v. Lehigh Navigation Co., 11 Wright 76; Moran v. Commissioners, 2 Black 722. The money was due under an express contract to pay at a day named, and on failure interest is payable: Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burr. 1077; Sedgwick on Dam. 374.

The Act of 1866 was designed, by compelling corporations to pay their creditors' counsel fees, to prevent them from oppressing their creditors.

M. P. Henry, for plaintiffs in error, in reply.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1867, by AGNEW, J.

The affidavit of defence in this case avers no possession of funds and readiness to pay the coupons at the time and place they were payable. The objection to the payment of interest is rested solely on the ground of non-presentation when due at the place appointed. But payment, tender and readiness to pay are all affirmative pleas, casting the burden of proof upon the defendant. It has been decided, therefore, in this state and elsewhere, that presentation and demand at the place of payment are unnecessary to entitle the plaintiff to recover where the defendant has shown no readiness on his part to pay at the place: Fitler v. Beckly, 2 W. & S. 458; Middleton v. Boston Locomotive Works, 2 Casey 257; Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Peters 136.

That coupons bear interest is decided in The County of Beaver v. Armstrong, 8 Wright 63. In the opinion of Justice Read the language used is, after demand and refusal, indicating the time of the running of interest to...